Re: “should have had a warning / apology”

Aaron Wolf wolftune at
Sat Oct 12 18:32:32 BST 2019

On 2019-10-12 10:13 a.m., Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> Aaron Wolf <wolftune at> wrote:
>> On 2019-10-12 3:20 a.m., Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>>> Aaron Wolf <wolftune at> wrote:
>>>> MBR posted a Facebook link (which should have had a warning/apology perhaps)
>>> I beg my pardon?  Warning of / apology for what?
>> Just like "sorry for Facebook link" or something (because Facebook is a company that works against most of the values we care about here).
> Well, a good half of the Internet work against or at least contributes something against freedom of computing.  I do not think that _we_ have to apologize for them.
>> I checked just now that this particular link is visible publicly without JavaScript though, so I guess it's not too bad, relatively speaking.
> Basically, it is not bad at all. :-)
> But do you mean, that Facebook have other pages that are not readable without running nonfree scripts?

Unlike Twitter, it can be common to have Facebook links that people
assume are basically public and visible but get blocked by requirement
to sign-in. I'm not sure about the Javascript issues per se.

And I generally do apologies (and promote such habits) when I use or
prompt others to engage with entities I feel are harmful overall. To be
specific to software freedom, instead of an absolute of never suggesting
or using any proprietary software ever, I make compromises to be
practical but I *acknowledge* and *apologize* for them. They aren't my
fault, but I'm promoting *awareness* of the problem and refusing to
spread the idea that using non-free software is just fine and normal.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list